You're right. It is a security issue, although I have a feeling that potential terrorists will not be rafting in from Cuba or swimming the Rio Grande. They'll probably have meticulously forged student visas and come in by airliner, or they'll be French-speaking Moroccans in Armani suits with Belgian passports. Or maybe even merchant seamen aboard ships full of nitrate fertilizer.

I'm certain the denial of easy employment will cut back the problem enormously by just removing the huge flood, making border enforcement much more manageable, although there will be an enormous humanitarian problem caused by the millions who have integrated themselves into our economy and who have at least one person in their family who is illegal. There will also be huge economic dislocations too, our economy has become addicted to cheap labor and there are going to be some unpleasant surprises if the spigot is just turned off overnight. Both here and in Mexico.

I do believe that there is no real reason for a wall, not because I'm opposed to it on humanitarian grounds, but simply because it wouldn't work. There is no technological solution to this problem. Right now, crossing the border on foot and hiking across the desert is not the primary method of entry. Most just show up in airplanes and automobiles, as tourists, and of course, they could always just smuggle them in with shipments of marijuana.

As with so many issues in this country, we have been deluded into thinking its an "evil heartless conservative versus flaky unreasonable liberal" issue. I hope I've pointed out that most liberals simply aren't aware of all the implications of these problems and are being deluded by some very disingenuous moral considerations, and some very influential conservatives actually stand to profit by the situation staying just the way it is. I think this explains the so called "split" amongst Republicans on the legislation.